RAKESH KUMAR Vs. JASBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the accused. He issued a cheque dated 22.4.2006 to the complainant -respondent No.1, which was dishonoured. The dishonor memo is dated 25.4.2006. Thereafter, the complainant sent a notice dated 1.5.2006 demanding payment of the cheque amount but no response was received thereto. Hence, he filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The complaint was dismissed and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgement dated 25.02.2014. However, appeal against the said judgement was allowed on 20.10.2015 and the case was remanded for a fresh decision. Post remand, vide judgement dated 8.7.2016, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of two years. He was also directed to pay compensation equal to the cheque amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of cheque till the date of the judgement. Appeal against the aforementioned judgement of conviction was dismissed vide judgement dated 21.8.2019 leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not press the revision petition on merits. He confines his prayer to reduction in the quantum of sentence. He submits that the petitioner is a poor person. He has undergone a protracted trial of almost 10 years. Further, he has undergone actual sentence of one year and 9 days. All these facts taken cumulatively entitle the petitioner to some leniency. Thus, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. So far as the compensation amount is concerned, the complainant - respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to recover the same in accordance with law. He places reliance on some single Bench judgements of this Court which are Criminal Revision No.992 of 2016 Subhash Thakur versus State of Haryana and another, decided on 08.04.2016, Criminal Revision No. 4300 of 2017 Sumit Kumar versus Rajinder Kumar Nagpal and another, decided on 5.6.2018 and Criminal Revision No.3364 of 2015 Gurjant Singh versus Harpreet Singh, decided on 4.9.2019.

(3.) The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner have been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Complainant-respondent No. 1. He states that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act and having done so, he deserves to undergo the complete sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. He does not deserve any leniency. Merely because he has undergone a protracted trial, does not entitle him to any benefit. No infirmity or illegality in the exercise of discretion by the trial Court has been pointed out and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve any relief. The revision petition merits dismissal.